Eric Walberer

• About this site

Personal Story of Becky Kew - "In our small town of 800 people, it seemed as if drinking was all there was to do. I remember times when my Mom and Dad fought. I used to wonder: Why do they love this brown bottle so much when it brings so much misery? Why don't they love me? Is this all my fault?  One time he had her pinned down on the coffee table and I really thought that this time, he would kill her." (more)

• About this site

• About this site

 Abundant Grace

• About this site

Should I be baptized again as an adult if I was baptized as a baby?

• About this site

Rosa and her son Jesus

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

OVERSIGHT
Is it scriptural for overseeing brethren to hold that, and to act as if, they and they alone are responsible to God for the carrying on of the affairs of a local assembly?

Does attendance at a monthly oversight meeting constitute one an overseer?

It is not attendance at an oversight meeting which makes a man an overseer, nor the appointment of anyone, even an apostle, but the call of the Holy Spirit to the work (Acts 20:28)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28). There will also be a desire for the work not an “office” 1 Timothy 3:1" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3:1 though there will be doubtless a consciousness of insufficiency. In addition, there must be also certain qualities in a man to enable his brethren to recognize his fitness and call.  He must be blameless, patient, not domineering; apt to teach (that is, not necessarily a teacher, but able to instruct in sound doctrine). He must be able to rule well his own house; he must not be a neophyte, that is, a newly converted person; and he must have a good report in the world (see 1 Timothy 3" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1" TARGET="_blank">Titus 1: ). These chapters are an integral part of God’s Word, and it is quite a gratuitous assumption to say that they are in abeyance, because we have no apostles or apostolic delegates. Why should all these directions be left, if not to guide us on this very point?

What is proposed to take the place of an elders’ meeting?—a mere human arrangement without, I believe, one line of Scripture to authorise it—a meeting of the male members of the assembly. Surely it is evident that some of the men in a gathering may correspond very slightly indeed, if at all, with the conditions laid down in the Scriptures. They may be new converts; they may lack the power to keep their own homes in order; they may be lacking in the qualities and grace needed for the work of oversight; they may, perchance, not have a good report in the world. If so, they are as clearly excluded from oversight as the sisters. I was once long ago in a meeting where the leading brother, having come from a circle where the arrangement in question had vogue, insisted on all the males being invited to the “business meeting.” I remember still the hindrance this was to a true oversight meeting. Only two meetings are known to the Word—

(i) That of the “apostles and elders” (Acts 15:6; 20:18)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 15:6; 20:18), but because we have no elders of apostolic gifts, this principle is in no way affected. What excuse can there be for introducing mere “males,” whom the Scriptures exclude? (a) That of the assembly (Acts 14:27;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 14:27; Acts 15:4;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 15:4; Acts 20:7;" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:7; Acts 21:22)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 21:22). What is known as the “oversight meeting” is a matter of convenient arrangement between brethren who have mutual confidence, but it ought not to be what is called “a closed oligarchy,” nor should it prevent anyone else, who believes himself called to the work of caring for the saints and of giving proof of his ministry, but such would naturally not force fellowship on others,but would wait to be assured of their welcome. Overseeing brethren ought to be on the lookout for Spirit-called helpers.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

Are we to Suppose that the injunction to abstain from blood (Genesis 9:4)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 9:4) holds good to day?

If not, how quote verse 6 to justify capital punishment? Or does 1 Timothy 4:1-5" TARGET="_blank">1 Timothy 4:1-5 allow us to eat all things even blood, so long as we give thanIs?

Sometimes we have to complain that the divisions of the chapters in our Bible cut the sense, but in this case the division between Genesis 8" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 8: and 9, though it may seem awkward, is really useful to the right understanjing of the passage. God’s covenant with man, guaranteeing him from a recurrence of the deluge “while the earth remaineth,” with an uninterrupted continuance of harvests, seasons and diurnal changes is contained in the two closing verses of ch. 8. This is known as the Noachian Covenant. In Genesis 9:1-7" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 9:1-7 we have God’s blessing on Noah, accompanied by (1) a promise, V. 2 (2) a provision, V. 3; (3) a prohibition, v. and (4) a penalty, VV. 5, 6, in which penalty was embodied the entrusting of govermuent into the hands of men.All this, however, was apart from the covenant, which is unconditional, and which is brought up again in vy. 9-12, thus: verse 9—its universality; 9-I I—its perpetuity, V. x2—its token, the rainbow.

As for the prohibition and penalty attaching to the blessing, we should not know whether they were perpetually binding on man or the children of God, apart from the rest of the Scriptures. As far as I can see, the penalty attaching to murder has never been abrogated and is binding to-day as a governmental act, on rulers to whom God has entrusted the sword for executing justice on evil doers, especially murderers. As for the prohibition to eat blood, it held, as we know, under the law (see Leviticus 17:10-11)," TARGET="_blank">Leviticus 17:10-11), and in the Acts period Acts 15:20)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 15:20), but has, I believe, been abrogated for us, not only by such a Scripture as the questioner quotes; but by such a verse as 1 Corinthians 10:25" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:25: “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no questions for conscience sake.” The heathen knew nothing of slaughtering after the Jewish method, so as to be sure of draining off the blood of the animal.

According to this verse, therefore, a believer might eat whatsoever was put before him, asking no question for conscience sake. Then it does not say, “But if any say unto you, This has the blood in it, eat not,” for that question we may infer was of no importance, but rather, “This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not” (v. 28). It is perfectly clear then that the injunction not to eat blood does not apply to Christians to-day. ‘rhe prohibition in Acts 15" TARGET="_blank">Acts 15 really has nothing to set against this, as things were then in a transition state, and the Corinthian Epistle had not been written.

W.H.

• About this site

• About this site

ASSEMBLY FELLOWSHIP

Would it be correct to say that there is only one Fellowship in Scripture, into which alt believers are brought upon accepting Christ as their Saviour? If this be so, how are we to understand the Fellowship of 1 John 2" TARGET="_blank">1 John 2? Again, does not the New Testament teach Assembly Fellowship, into which a believer can be received, and from which he can be put away? and are letters of commendation necessary? Further, does the local church in any district include all the Christians in that district? and should a professed believer who belongs to a sect, but who comes to our Lord’s Day Morning Meeting and expects to get breaking bread, be received, though he has no intention of severing his ecclesiastical association?

The statement that “There is only one fellowship in Scripture, into which all believers are brought on accepting Christ as their Saviour,” is absolute nonsense. The particular kind of fellowship implied in any passage where the word “Fellowship” occurs has to be gathered from the context there; and an examination of this will reveal that there are various “fellowships” spoken of in the New Testament. Moreover, it is to be remembered that the Greek word “Koinonia,” which is usually translated “fellowship,” in the N.T. is also rendered, “communion,” “communication,” “contribution,” and “distribution.”

The first occurrence of the word is in Acts 2:42," TARGET="_blank">Acts 2:42, where it is said that the new converts “continued steadfastly in the . . . fellowship.” Here we have a “fellowship” in which one may “continue” or not continue; and to apply it to the fellowship of life in Christ, in which all true believers cannot avoid continuing, is to make the statement in the verse meaningless.

It is next found in Romans 1:26" TARGET="_blank">Romans 1:26 (where in our English Version it is rendered “contribution”). Could it be said that every saint of the present dispensation, or even every saint then living, had fellowship in the gift which the saints of Macedonia and Achaia sent to those of Jerusalem?

The epistle to the Philippians supplies perhaps the most interesting examples of the various uses of the word “fellowship.” In Philippians 1:5" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 1:5 we read of their Fellowship in the Gospel. Are all saints in this? In Philippians 2:1 we have mention of Fellowship of the Spirit. If all have this, why does Paul say, “If there be any”? In Philippians 3:10" TARGET="_blank">Philippians 3:10 he speaks of the Fellowship of His Sufferings, which he himself desired to know. But could saints who never had the least experience of persecution for Christ’s sake, claim to be in that fellowship? Lastly in Philippians 4:15 (see R.V.) we get the

Fellowship of Giving.

As to the passage in 1 John 1:3-7," TARGET="_blank">1 John 1:3-7, in which we have the last four occurrences of the word “fellowship” in the Scriptures, the expression in verse 3, “that ye also may have fellowship with us,” implies a fellowship which they might or might not have, according to the extent of their knowledge of Christ and His Word; or perhaps it would be more accurate to say, of which they might have more or less, according to whether they knew more or less of Christ and His Word. The further references in verses 6, 7, are clearly to a fellowship in which we can only claim to be, so long as we walk in the light. The man who says he is in it, while yet he is not walking in the light, is described as lying.

As to the next question—whether there is such a thing as “Assembly fellowship, into which a believer can be received, and from which he can be put away”—only a person of warped mind would deny this. When Paul said, in 1 Corinthians 5:13," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 5:13, “Put away from among yourselves that wicked person,” and the Corinthians obeyed him, was the one who was so “put away” to continue in the circle and insist on breaking bread, as being a member of the so-called “local church?” And if, while yet in the position of having been “put away,” he goes to reside in another town, must the Assembly in that town also set him down at the Table, because since he now has his home there, he is a member of their “local church?” If these things are so, we may leave the first epistle to the Corinthians out of future editions of our Bibles.

With regard to the meaning of the word “church,” when used locally, I have to say what already I have said about that other word “fellowship.” What it includes or does not include in any particular case must be judged from the context there. In 1 Corinthians 10:32" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 10:32—it evidently takes in every saved person in the district, just as the other two terms in the verse, “Jews” and “Gentiles,” take in all the others in the district. But in the same epistle at 1 Corinthians 11:18" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:18 and 1 Corinthians 11:18, 28, 35," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:18, 28, 35, it just as plainly means none but those who come to the Meeting; and this is made even clearer by 1 Corinthians 14:23," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 14:23, in which, after the whole church has come together, there may still come in one who is spoken of as “unlearned,” yet who is distinguished (by the little word “or” that follows) from an “unbeliever.” In other words, he is a saved man, but not yet in the “local church,” in the sense in which the term “church” is used in this verse.
Moreover, not only can a person be put out of a local church when he deserves it, but according to 3 John io, he may be “cast out of the church” even when he does not deserve it. One might well ask, Who were still “in” this local church after Diotrephes had cast these brethren “out” of it? Or were the cast out brethren “out” and “in” at the same time?

As to “letters of commendation,” is it not clearly enough stated in 2 Corinthians 3:1" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 3:1 that some needed them, though Paul, being well-known to everyone, did not? How often would some require a thing to be stated in Scripture, in order to feel themselves bound to act accordingly?

With regard to the other matter—the case of a professed Christian who belongs to some sect, but comes to our meeting and expects to get breaking bread for one Lord’s Day only, and then returns to his own company—I would need a good deal of convincing that the one who wished so to act was an honest man. If he believes that we are right, why should he not come to stay with us? If he believes us to be wrong and his own sect right, why should he want to do wrong even for one Lord’s Day? And if he can do without “breaking bread” on fifty-one Sundays in the year, why should he be insistent on being allowed to do so on the remaining one?

W.R.

• About this site

• About this site

• About this site

If a Christian falls into sin for a longer or shorter period, and is restored to communion through confession, will this entail loss in eternity, or will all be forgiven and forgotten at the Judgment Seat of Christ?

It seems very important to distinguish between God’s government and God’s grace. When a sinner is led to repentance and faith in Christ, he is forgiven all iniquities: he possesses eternal life; he “shall not come into judgment, but is passed from death unto life.” (John 5: 24)." TARGET="_blank">John 5: 24). He is a child of God. He is “in Christ Jesus” and there is “no condemnation” to him; this is grace.

But if he sins as a child of God, whether for a longer or shorter period, it will lead to chastening in one form or other. This is government. He needs the forgiveness of the Father and it is for such a circumstance that the advocacy of Christ exists: “If any man (i.e. Christian) sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” (1 John 2:1)." TARGET="_blank">1 John 2:1). This advocacy produces conviction by the Spirit, confession and restoration, and “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9)." TARGET="_blank">1 John 1:9). This again is grace. But though forgiven and cleansed, it does not follow that the effect of the sin is at once removed governmentally.

David confessed his sin and was straightway forgiven, but the Lord dealt with him governmentally in three ways:
“the sword would never depart from his house,” the child would die, and he would receive the same treatment he had meted out to others (2 Samuel 12:1" TARGET="_blank">2 Samuel 12:1 - ). So that though sins are forgiven and forgotten in one sense, they are not in another. The time that the soul is away from God, is lost time, for it is fruitless. What has been occupied in sin and self-will, might have been filled with service and fruit for God. The believer stands in different relations to God and Christ. He is not only a member of Christ, a child of God and a temple of the Spirit, but he is a steward, a servant, a builder, etc., to the Lord. If his “work be burnt up he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire” (1 Corinthians 3:15);" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 3:15); that “everyone may receive the things done in his body according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.” (2 Corinthians 5:10)." TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:10). It seems very hard to believe that this will not entail an eternal difference. Some are preparing themselves for a high position in the millennial and everlasting kingdoms, which others could not possibly fill, owing to their unbelief, self-will or disobedience to the Lord’s commands.

William Hoste

• About this site